Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Urban Growth Boundary vs City Limits

Expand Messages
  • Lanyon, Ryan
    ... I think Mike is referring to something like Portland s development boundary, and not political boundaries. Having just experienced amalgamation of 11 local
    Message 1 of 3 , May 28, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      > Message: 9
      > Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 02:12:41 -0400
      > From: "Ronald Dawson" <rdadddmd@...>
      > Subject: RE: Re: Density-phobes
      >
      > Mike Lacey wrote:
      > >Anti-growth is such a poorly defined term. I am anti-growth if growth
      > >means expansion of city limits and exploitation of virgin land.
      >
      > When you say "expansion of city limits" do you mean one city
      > taking over an
      > other? If so that's what is happening where I live. As of
      > January 1, 2002 my
      > city "St.Laurent", will no longer exist and will become part
      > of the city of
      > Montreal along with all the other municipalities on the
      > island of Montreal.
      >
      > A.K.A One Island, One City. Dawson

      I think Mike is referring to something like Portland's development boundary,
      and not political boundaries.

      Having just experienced amalgamation of 11 local municipalities and one
      regional government into one tier of local government in Ottawa, my humble
      opinion is that larger local governments work better to reduce sprawl. It
      provides a pooling of resources and prevents squabbling between suburban
      municipalities and urban ones. It also more appropriately accounts for the
      costs of providing transportation to outlying areas (but subsidies from the
      core still exist). Finally, the communities now view themselves as part of
      a larger picture in the city, and less so as enclosed suburbs.

      -RL
    • Ronald Dawson
      ... boundary, ... I still don t know how effective UGB s can be. Couldn t construction just leap frog over them? Though no go/no grow areas would help. ... I
      Message 2 of 3 , May 28, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Lanyon, Ryan wrote:
        >> Message: 9
        >> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 02:12:41 -0400
        >> From: "Ronald Dawson" <rdadddmd@...>
        >> Subject: RE: Re: Density-phobes
        >>
        >> Mike Lacey wrote:
        >> >Anti-growth is such a poorly defined term. I am anti-growth if growth
        >> >means expansion of city limits and exploitation of virgin land.
        >>
        >> When you say "expansion of city limits" do you mean one city
        >> taking over an
        >> other? If so that's what is happening where I live. As of
        >> January 1, 2002 my
        >> city "St.Laurent", will no longer exist and will become part
        >> of the city of
        >> Montreal along with all the other municipalities on the
        >> island of Montreal.
        >>
        >> A.K.A One Island, One City. Dawson

        >I think Mike is referring to something like Portland's development
        boundary,
        >and not political boundaries.

        I still don't know how effective UGB's can be. Couldn't construction just
        leap frog over them? Though no go/no grow areas would help.

        >Having just experienced amalgamation of 11 local municipalities and one
        >regional government into one tier of local government in Ottawa, my humble
        >opinion is that larger local governments work better to reduce sprawl.

        I hope it does, but it also alienates citizens on a local level.

        For Canada, I think it would make more sense to eliminate provincial
        governments. They treat you as second class citizens and keep money from
        going where it's needed like health care, education, transit etc.

        >It
        >provides a pooling of resources and prevents squabbling between suburban
        >municipalities and urban ones. It also more appropriately accounts for the
        >costs of providing transportation to outlying areas (but subsidies from the
        >core still exist).

        I know what you mean, that's why I'm in favour of transfer payments from
        suburbs to urban municipalities. Case in point for my area the City of Laval
        to Montreal and St.Laurent for commuter train services.

        >Finally, the communities now view themselves as part of
        >a larger picture in the city, and less so as enclosed suburbs.

        That isn't necessarily so, some body could be in one borough and not care
        what happens to another borough. That's why a county, metropolitan or
        regional level of government is better for issues like planning and
        transportation.
        Dawson
      • Boileau,Pierre [NCR]
        Hi Ryan, Doesn t amalgamation provide justification for growing smaller municipalities outside the new city so that they eventually become big enough to join
        Message 3 of 3 , May 30, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Ryan,

          Doesn't amalgamation provide justification for growing smaller
          municipalities outside the new city so that they eventually become big
          enough to join the 'mother ship'? We had this debate around a proposal to
          develop decentralized wastewater treatment plants for small rural
          municipalities outside large urban centres. If municipal services become
          equivalent in the small rural municipalities, doesn't this provide an
          incentive for growth in those smaller municipalities, which have less crime,
          friendlier neighbours, etc.? Wouldn't this make it more attractive for
          people to move away from the 'congested centre' to the wide open rural
          municipalities?

          Playing devil's advocate, Pierre.

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Lanyon, Ryan [mailto:ryan.lanyon@...]
          Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 11:43 AM
          To: 'carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com'
          Subject: [carfree_cities] Urban Growth Boundary vs City Limits


          > Message: 9
          > Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 02:12:41 -0400
          > From: "Ronald Dawson" <rdadddmd@...>
          > Subject: RE: Re: Density-phobes
          >
          > Mike Lacey wrote:
          > >Anti-growth is such a poorly defined term. I am anti-growth if growth
          > >means expansion of city limits and exploitation of virgin land.
          >
          > When you say "expansion of city limits" do you mean one city
          > taking over an
          > other? If so that's what is happening where I live. As of
          > January 1, 2002 my
          > city "St.Laurent", will no longer exist and will become part
          > of the city of
          > Montreal along with all the other municipalities on the
          > island of Montreal.
          >
          > A.K.A One Island, One City. Dawson

          I think Mike is referring to something like Portland's development boundary,
          and not political boundaries.

          Having just experienced amalgamation of 11 local municipalities and one
          regional government into one tier of local government in Ottawa, my humble
          opinion is that larger local governments work better to reduce sprawl. It
          provides a pooling of resources and prevents squabbling between suburban
          municipalities and urban ones. It also more appropriately accounts for the
          costs of providing transportation to outlying areas (but subsidies from the
          core still exist). Finally, the communities now view themselves as part of
          a larger picture in the city, and less so as enclosed suburbs.

          -RL

          To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
          To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
          carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
          Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.